I am worried about Pat's proposals for *any* RDF list semantics.
I had believed that we were going to provide a list syntax, and leave
the semantics to WebOnt.
Pat's current proposal appears to have three unfortunate features:
EQUALITY
========
_:l rdf:first <a> .
_:l rdf:first <b> .
<a> <foo> <val> .
entails
<b> <foo> <val> .
INFINITY
========
RDF closures of the empty rdf graph are infinite.
CONTRADICTION
=============
The following rdf graph has no interpretations:
rdf:nil rdf:first <foo> .
(I note that we will have datatype errors in RDF graphs soon, but that
feels to me like a significantly more limited style of 'contradiction').
On the basis of these three features, which are more characteristic of
OWL than RDF I suggest we ask WebOnt to handle List semantics.
Jeremy